High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:129779 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41927 of 2024 Applicant :- Sambhav Singhai Alias Sambhav Jain Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Kulshrestha,Surita Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for parties. 2. The present application has been filed by applicant praying for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No.11268 of 2024 (State Vs Shubham and others), arising out of Case Crime No.541 of 2023, under Section 384, 120-B IPC and Section 67 of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, P.S. Kotwali, District Lalitpur and quash the charge sheet No.1 dated 10.09.2023 and supplemantary charge sheet No.2 dated 30.03.2024 which is pending in the court of learned Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur. 3. Brief facts of the present case are that an FIR bearing Case Crime No.541 of 2023, under Section 384, 120-B IPC and Section 67 of I.T. Act was lodged by opposite party no.2 on dated 25.07.2023 against applicant and one another accused alleging that on 24.07.2023, when opposite party no.2 alongwith two other persons reached near Idgah at about 8:00 PM, applicant and one Sambhav Singhavi met them and stated that they are journalists and demanded Rs.1,00,000/- each otherwise they will publish news to defame opposite party no.2 and his family members but opposite party no.2 refused to give money to them. On the next date i.e. 25.07.2023, when opposite party no.2 saw a post on Facebook pasted by applicant and Sambhav Singhavi defaming the opposite party no.2 and his family members. After registration of FIR, the concerned Investigating Officer after detailed inquiry, submitted chargesheet on dated 10.09.2023 whereupon, learned court concerned took cognizance of offence on dated 23.08.2024 which impugned the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case on the basis of concocted story since he was not present at the place of alleged incident and in support of the same, several persons have given their affidavits that on 24.07.2023 from 6.30 PM to 8 PM, applicant was with them at Village Bhailwara which is about 10 Km. away from the alleged place. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that applicant has neither demanded any money from opposite party no.2 nor any objectionable post has been made from his mobile number and moreso, opposite party no.2 has not given any money to him and as such, no offence under Section 384 IPC is made out since no money has been delivered to the applicant pursuant to the threat given by him. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that there are several contradictions in the statements recorded during investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but without considering the said facts, learned court has taken cognizance of offence on dated 23.08.2024 without application of mind over the chargesheet submitted by concerned Investigating Officer and as such, the entire proceedings of the present case may be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned AGA and Sri Akshay Raj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant application and submitted that the contentions, which are sought to be raised on behalf of applicant, would relate to disputed questions of fact, and would involve appreciation of evidence. 6. A precise query has been made before learned counsel for opposite party no.2 that whether any money as demanded by applicant, has ever been given by opposite party no.2 to him, in reply to the same, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 fairly submitted that no money has ever been given by opposite party no.2 to applicant. 7. After having rival contentions raised by learned counsel for parties and perusal of the records, the Court notes that the necessary ingredients for constituting an offence of 'extortion' is that the prosecution must prove that on account of being put in fear of injury, the victim was voluntarily delivered any particular property to the man putting him into fear. If there was no delivery of property, then the most important ingredient for constituting the offence of 'extortion' would not be available. 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Isaac Isanga Musumba and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others [(2014) 15 SCC 357], has held as under:- "3. We have read the FIR which has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure P-7 and we find therefrom that the complainants have alleged that the accused persons have shown copies of international warrants issued against the complainants by the Ugandan Court and letters written by Uganda Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs and the accused have threatened to extort 20 million dollars (equivalent to Rs 110 crores). In the complaint, there is no mention whatsoever that pursuant to the demands made by the accused, any amount was delivered to the accused by the complainants. If that be so, we fail to see as to how an offence of extortion as defined in Section 383 IPC is made out. Section 383 IPC states that: 383. Extortion- Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits extortion." Hence, unless property is delivered to the accused person pursuant to the threat, no offence of extortion is made out and an FIR for the offence under Section 384 could not have been registered by the police." 9. In view of above legal provisions, considering the facts of the case and from perusal of FIR, prima facie, no offence under Section 384 IPC is made out against applicant since there was no delivery of property to the applicant pursuant to the threat given by him. In sofar as offence under Section 120-B IPC and Section 67 of I.T. Act are concerned, the same are subject matter of trial and as such, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur is hereby directed to proceed with trial in pursuance of Section 120-B IPC and Section 67 of I.T. Act only except Section 384 IPC against applicant herein. 10. Accordingly, the instant application stands allowed in part. Order Date :- 1.8.2025 I.A.Siddiqui Digitally signed by :- IMRAN AHMAD SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad